I'm prepared to give you the whole 'it was a local flood' thing. Interpretation, blah blah blah. But, and this seems a bit important, the whole point of the flood was to cleanse sin or some crap from the earth, right? Hence why the Christian god gets all uppity and says he's gonna wipe everything out and start again.

So - this just about makes sense if it was a global flood. Kinda logically hangs together - god gets angry, destroys world, but gives one good man plus his family plus his pets the chance to survive and rebuild and all that, leaving aside the fact that it sounds like a three-year-old having a temper tantrum.

But if it was a local flood? "Hey Noah," says God, "I'm afraid I have to wipe out everything because you're all pissing me off. But it's ok, because I'm not really. There's dry land over there. And, y'know, more animals and stuff." Either he's trying to fool Noah into thinking it's a global flood when it's not, which makes him a vindictive liar, or he *gasp* dosen't know it's not a global flood, which makes him not the all-powerful deity y'all say he is.

Tell us which it is, or present to us your latest and greatest cognitive dissonance that you use to internally resolve this particular problem. (Or rant about how it's not really a problem. Or about how your bible doesn't really mean what it says. I'm not choosy really, go nuts.)

Correct, Gd did know better. This is only evidential by knowing what is knowable by Noah, and affirmed by all the surrounding stats and specs in this reporting. The difficiency would be only if Noah and the spacetime was disregarded, eg: if Tasmania or any other state which was known or settled yet by Noah and not mentioned, or that if wild animals such as lions and tigers, were in the text. This is not the case.

If Mr. Einstein converses with a 2 year old child, and does not mention MC2 - it is a commendation of Einstein - not a difficiency he never knew about MC2.

It really is very difficult to understand what you are trying to say when you write like this. For the benefit of myself and prehaps other lurkers could you please write in a more clear way?

We find here also, this flood was reported by others in the region, affirming the report, but only as a regional flood.

Could you provide some documentation? I am curious mainly about the date of this historical record. Does it predate the OT?

The flood was mentioned in babylonian writings, I believe it was Hamurabi. Noah predated the OT emergence by 2000 years; the OT describes it retrospectively - the astonishing thing for me, and one far more interesting than the debate of the flood size - where its texts can be read differently with different conclusions.

While I understand millions see it as a global flood, and this has a major impact on history and geography, its other view can be just as soundly made. The multi references of the whole earth; all life with breath; covering of mountain tops, etc render other contradictions if read as a global flood. The global aspect also contradicts that there were other civilizations in Asia, such as China and India - it fosters a different debate again, and perhaps it is best to evidence these other nations and sectors of the world, as the deciding factor here: while we have reports of Mohenjodaro, for example, being over 5000 years old - some also date this as 2500 years old, and its datings are in dispute; also, the surrounding evidences for India and China being more than 5000 is not iron clad - there are no supporting evidences which satisfy my research here.

The Noah story is far more dependable than all the links I've seen for other pre-5000 year reportings of history: it contains dates and names which expound the origins of many nations in the list of Noah's generations:

Canaan, the Jebusites and ancient Egypt via Ham , and Put, and Canaan.; Greece [Greece] & Germany [ashkanaz]; Shem-Nahor-Terah-Abraham; Assyria, phoenecia and Babylon [11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-ir, and Calah]; the original Philistine [14 and Pathrusim, and Casluhim--whence went forth the Philistines--and Caphtorim. {S}]; etc. I am not certain, but Cush and Hodu are also mentioned, and one of these may relate to India.

The Noah story ends with the Abraham, which serves as a background to what the OT is narrating, which I have not seen else such a level of historical writ. Here is the first introduction of the Chaldees, Abraham,Sarah and the city of Ur, now in Iraq:

28 And Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. 29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.

Places and routes are also mentioned:10/19 And the border of the Canaanite was from Zidon, as thou goest toward Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim, unto Lasha.

The above stats are the measuring roads and vindicated, by archeologists today. There is no question that Genesis is making historical portrains here, of an ancient period which is not seen elsewhere. This makes it a document which describes ancient history, whereby the world would not know of these details without it.

While I myself am a staunch believer in the living Christ, I also have a mind and I also notice that this is a Science Forum. You cannot, I repeat, cannot use the Bible alone as a source of scientific verification, since you have no other links, no other supporting information, and nothing else to offer except to endlessly repeat your unsupported assertions.

You have lost the debates over here (in the Science Forums) and if you insist upon continuing to repeat yourself, I shall be forced to restrict you from access to this portion of the EvC Forum.

Please do the lurkers and participants a favor and withdraw gracefully before our bouncer throws you from the club. ;)

Edited by AdminPhat, : clarification

What Is A Discussion Board Anyway?

New Topics should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Keep them short and don't attempt to explain your entire point in the first post. Allow others to respond so that you can expand your discussion.

If you are warned by an administrator or moderator for any reason that is not explained in the Forum Guidelines you can argue your case here.

If you are not promoted, feel free to discuss your reasons with the administrator in the Proposed New Topics Forum who responded to your topic proposal. Feel free to edit and modify your topic and inform the administrator that you have done so. You may also take your argument here and get feedback from other administrators. Usually, we leave topic promotion to the first administrator that responds, unless that administrator invites others to comment.

************************************"DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU"AdminPhat

Adding to what AdminPhat has said, your position that the Bible is accurate because it mentions places that actually existed in history can be taken to one of the Social/Religious threads, but you could also take it to the The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum, which is in the science category.

Last time I checked, even a diary is acceptable evidence in a court - even in a murder trial. It is held as established unless opposing evidence is shown. The latter did not iccur, rendering it a scientifically acceptable positation. This is FACT.

There is no need for admin to get rude and use unacceptable terms, or to advise me what is science and what is not!

The Noah story ends with the Abraham, which serves as a background to what the OT is narrating, which I have not seen else such a level of historical writ. Here is the first introduction of the Chaldees, Abraham,Sarah and the city of Ur, now in Iraq:

Except for the fact that at the time of Abraham, the Chaldees (Chaldeans) did not own Ur. Depending on exactly when Abraham existed, Ur was a Babylonian, Akkadian or Sumerian City. The Chaldeans didn't occupy Ur until less than 100 years before the so called carrying off to Babylon. - Visual History of the World, National Gerographic.

Obviously, I referred to the name of a state called Tasmania did not exist, and this is correct. Captain Cook too did not exist!

Ah, I see (not!). Of course the province of Tasmania didn't exist. That seems a pretty trivial point. On the other hand, with reference to Noah et al, your deity would have had to know about the existence of the island of Tasmania, n'est-ce pas? Especially since old Noah would have had to take organisms like the thylacines and tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii) - none of which are/were found anywhere BUT Tasmania - with him on his boat, right?

quote: Could you provide some documentation? I am curious mainly about the date of this historical record. Does it predate the OT?

The flood was mentioned in babylonian writings, I believe it was Hamurabi.

So you will be willing to retract your previous statements?

message 232 writes:

Grammar was introduced in the OT.

You have introduced a historical account that pre-dates the OT and confirms a localized flood. Does a historacal account of anything not need grammar?

Message 234 writes:

The differential is, unlike any other document [to my knowledge], and also irrespectively, Genesis is speaking 'retrospectively', namely of names and historical factors which are over 2000 years from its own contemporary spacetime.

Now, to your knowledge there are other ducuments that speak retrospectiveley, mention names and historical factors and also pre-date the OT as a historical record.

And in the same post that you provide the information I requested you say this:

There is no question that Genesis is making historical portrains here, of an ancient period which is not seen elsewhere. This makes it a document which describes ancient history, whereby the world would not know of these details without it.

Why do you keep saying such nonsense when your even contradicting yourself in the same post? There is "historical portrains" of this period seen elsewhere - your using it as supporting evidence for your claims! The details that you claim would not be known to the world without Genesis are in fact recorded in other documents, ones you have attempted to use repeatedly as support.

**why do you seemingly avoid 90% of my post content and reply to small matters? It strikes me as odd and makes me wonder if your strategy is to simply avoid the portions of my posts that would ruin your position if explored. I am of course simply speculating since avoidance means your position can be restated time and agian without closer examination. Alternatively I could speculate that you have retracted all your claims based upon my replies and future posts will reflect this changing worldview. I have my doubts about my speculations but I am unable to confirm much of anything when you skip so much of the debate.

As I said before, if it is a time constraint that is perfectly ok with me. I would ask however that you state as much so I can wait for your reply without the guesswork and speculations.

Fine. What I pointed out was this was the earliest reference to Ur and the chaldees, as a factor that genesis knows about the region it describes. There is no question that a historical fact is just as valid as any scientific fact - if not more so. Some like to make science as the only diety in town, forgetting this is only one of the many faculties of study and examination, equal to and alongside other faculties as historical, mathematical and geographical facts.

Where history cannot be vindicated, there is no science or maths, meaning it is upto science to evidence itself with validated history: where a lab test fails this test and cannot back itself with population and mental prowess factors, its back to the drawing board. the latter is a vindicated constant of factual history before us, and thus the operative measuring factor.

quote: your deity would have had to know about the existence of the island of Tasmania, n'est-ce pas?

Correct. Thus it was not listed prematurely, and that this was not appropriate to point out to 5500 year Noah is also a relevant factor here. However, if you look at *world* maps even a few centuries ago, Tasmania would not even be listed as a landmass, and this is appropriate proof of its relevant spacetime.

quote:You have introduced a historical account that pre-dates the OT and confirms a localized flood. Does a historacal account of anything not need grammar?

I have not done that, but it is evident this is the case with the OT. According to its narratives, the OT was wriiten 3,200 years ago, while it's diarised calendar describes a 6000 year history - the OT is describing a retrospective history in this instant, and this is common knowledge. While many theological documents do this, they do not contain the evodential historical stats and specs seen in the OT.

quote: Why do you keep saying such nonsense when your even contradicting yourself in the same post? There is "historical portrains" of this period seen elsewhere - your using it as supporting evidence for your claims! The details that you claim would not be known to the world without Genesis are in fact recorded in other documents, ones you have attempted to use repeatedly as support.

The flood is mentioned elsewhere in other writings, and it constitutes a small segment of the Genesis account. There is no need for a retraction, but I concede the texts can be read differently as to the size of the flood, while all the surrounding descriptions here are authentic and generally accepted by most archeologists: I refer to descriptions of names, places and datings, seen here for the first time in such detail.